{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2017-07-25-pt1-PgH6268", "2017-07-25", 115, 1, null, null, "PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H6268", "H6278", "[{\"name\": \"Jeb Hensarling\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Maxine Waters\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Keith J. Rothfus\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Carolyn B. Maloney\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Blaine Luetkemeyer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Nancy Pelosi\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bill Huizenga\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Nydia M. Velazquez\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Andy Barr\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Keith Ellison\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Scott R. Tipton\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Michael E. Capuano\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Roger Williams\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Brad Sherman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Claudia Tenney\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bill Foster\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"David A. Trott\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Henry C. \\\"Hank\\\" Johnson, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Barry Loudermilk\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert C. \\\"Bobby\\\" Scott\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"David N. Cicilline\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John P. Sarbanes\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"David Kustoff\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Susan A. Davis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mark Takano\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Suzanne Bonamici\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"A. Donald McEachin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Matt Cartwright\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Goodlatte\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sheila Jackson Lee\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Al Lawson, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"111\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"111\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"111\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"468\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"468\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3364\"}]", "163 Cong. Rec. H6268", "Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 125 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 125 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]\n[House]\n[Pages H6268-H6278]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\nPROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU\n  OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS\n\n  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 468, I call\nup the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) providing for congressional\ndisapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule\nsubmitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to\n``Arbitration Agreements'', and ask for its immediate consideration.\n\n[[Page H6269]]\n\n  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 468, the joint\nresolution is considered read.\n  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:\n\n                             H.J. Res. 111\n\n       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the\n     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress\n     disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer\n     Financial Protection relating to ``Arbitration Agreements''\n     (82 Fed. Reg. 33210 (July 19, 2017)), and such rule shall\n     have no force or effect.\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling)\nand the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will\ncontrol 30 minutes.\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.\n\n                             General Leave\n\n  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members\nhave 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit\nextraneous material on the bill under consideration.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Texas?\n  There was no objection.\n  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may\nconsume.\n  Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans want something different in their\nNation's Capital. They want to change the toxic culture in Washington,\nD.C., that for far too long has allowed unaccountable bureaucrats to\noverreach and overregulate.\n  The best way we can change Washington is to begin to drain the\nbureaucratic swamp, but it is not easy because we have seen in the last\n6 months the swamp fights back. The most recent example of this is a\nrule issued by one of the swampiest of Washington bureaucracies, the\nOrwellian-named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.\n  We all know that this is a rogue agency with a checkered past, chock-\nfull of rampant allegations of abuse, racial and gender discrimination,\nand Big Government nannyism, which constantly makes credit more\nexpensive and less available to hardworking Americans.\n  Mr. Speaker, so radical is this agency and so extreme in lacking\naccountability that a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of\nAppeals declared the Bureau's governing structure unconstitutional.\n  Now, this unaccountable bureaucracy has joined forces in an unholy\nalliance with one of the Democratic Party's favorite special interest\ngroups; namely, the trial lawyers lobby. And this unholy alliance will\nspecifically deprive consumers of a low-cost, easy way to resolve legal\ndisputes that can be accomplished without hiring trial attorneys.\n  What the Bureau and the wealthy trial lawyers want is to take away\narbitration for consumers and, instead, force them into class action\nlawsuits, which just so happens to require consumers to hire the very\ntrial lawyers who will benefit most from this rule.\n  Americans were promised a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but,\ninstead, they obviously got a trial lawyer enrichment bureau. Oh, by\nthe way, the director of this swampy bureaucracy rushed this regulation\nonto the books because it is widely reported he is on the way out the\ndoor to run for political office in Ohio.\n  Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, one accountable bureaucrat has decided\nthat he knows better than the American people, and he has acted\nunilaterally to dictate the terms of contracts in a way that will\nactually increase consumer costs and reduce consumer choice. In a free\nand Democratic society, no one unelected individual should possess this\nmuch power.\n  Mr. Speaker, making consumers pay more for less is the exact opposite\nof consumer protection, but it is exactly what this regulation means\nfor every American.\n  This regulation will perpetuate a justice gap that takes away a\nquicker, less expensive legal option for low-income and middle-income\nAmericans.\n  Even the CFPB's own study says this: the Bureau's own study found\nthat 87 percent of the class actions it examined resulted in no\nconsumer benefit whatsoever. In the mere 13 percent that actually\nprovided some benefit, Mr. Speaker, the average payout per consumer was\n$32.\n  How much did the trial attorneys make?\n  31,000 times that amount.\n  So, again, Mr. Speaker, we have an average payout of $32 for the\nconsumers and millions for the trial attorneys. So no wonder the\npowerful trial attorneys lobby is so eager to see this rule go into\neffect.\n  The Bureau's own study also concludes that arbitration is less\nexpensive for consumers and up to 12 times faster than litigation.\n\n                              {time}  1530\n\n  Consumers who obtain relief in arbitration recovered in a CFPB study\nan average of $5,389. Again, Mr. Speaker, compare that to $32 the\naverage consumer received under the CFPB study.\n  Now, we are about to hear from some Members on the other side of the\naisle that somehow consumers will lose their day in court and that\nsomehow big banks will be helped. The CFPB's own study shows that not a\nsingle class action it examined, not a single one, resulted in trial by\na judge or a jury. So no consumer got his or her day in court under the\nBureau's preferred class actions. Instead, we know consumers are far\nmore likely to obtain decisions on the merits in arbitration.\n  With this rule, we once again see our colleagues in the other party\nhurting small community banks and credit unions. I have a statement\nthat has been published already from the Independent Community Bankers\nof America. They are not Wall Street. This is small town community\nbanks, and their statement says they strongly oppose the CFPB rule.\n  Also, I have a statement from the Credit Union National Association--\nagain, Mr. Speaker, not Wall Street, but credit unions, our\nneighborhood credit unions. They say that the CFPB's rule will limit\noptions for resolving disputes and could increase the number of\nfrivolous lawsuits and that credit union members ``could suffer when\ncosts rise and resources are depleted as a result of this rule.''\n  Indeed, the CFPB, itself, estimates its final rule will increase\ncosts for American businesses over $1 billion per year. That is money\nthat our community banks and credit unions won't be able to lend to our\nsmall businesses, to our families, and to American workers.\n  The CFPB's rule is bad for consumers, it is bad for community banks,\nit is bad for credit unions, and it is bad for our economy. Washington\nshould be focused on creating more jobs, not more class action\nlawsuits.\n  So, Mr. Speaker, it is time to fight the bureaucratic swamp. It is\ntime to pass the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania\n(Mr. Rothfus). I appreciate his leadership in helping protect consumers\ninstead of enriching trial lawyers.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such\ntime as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 111 is an affront to hardworking Americans\nacross the country. Using the Congressional Review Act, this joint\nresolution repeals the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's final\nrule to curb forced arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer\nfinancial products.\n  Today, many banks require consumers wanting to open a bank account,\nget a credit card, or take out a private student loan to enter into\nforced arbitration agreements that take away their rights to\ncollectively sue the bank for any harm. Instead, consumers must go\nthrough bank-friendly arbiters to resolve their grievances. These\ncontracts are literally buried deep into the fine print, enshrouded in\nlegalese. Consumers don't know what they are giving up--but the banks\ndo.\n  Arbitration proceedings, which happen behind closed doors, have no\njudge and no jury. Their proceedings and their outcomes heavily favor\nbig businesses and Wall Street. Studies have shown that forced\narbitration favors big business and results in less compensation for\nAmerican consumers who have been abused or defrauded, if they receive\nany at all.\n  Simply put, forced arbitration is an instrument that benefits large\ncorporations and Wall Street banks, and it\n\n[[Page H6270]]\n\nhurts consumers. For example, everybody remembers Wells Fargo. Wells\nFargo continues to use forced arbitration to prevent consumers from\nworking together to sue the bank for opening up millions of fraudulent\naccounts using their personal information. Just weeks ago, the Consumer\nBureau used a critical rule to finally clamp down on forced arbitration\nclauses. The Consumer Bureau should be applauded for taking this step\nto help consumers by fully restoring their legal rights.\n  Once again, the Consumer Bureau has acted to make our financial\nmarketplaces fairer and transparent. As is their practice, the Consumer\nBureau issued this rule after careful deliberation and exhaustive\nreview. As part of this deliberative process, they issued a 728-page\nreport on the issue, considered views from all stakeholders, and\nconsulted carefully with the other Federal financial regulators.\n  The Consumer Bureau's final rule has widespread support, including\nfrom over 310 consumer, civil rights, faith-based, and senior groups,\n256 law professors and scholars, and the Military Coalition, an\norganization that represents 5.5 million current and former\nservicemembers and their families.\n  Now, this rule was just finalized, but congressional Republicans are\nalready shamefully forging ahead to cut it off at the knees. This\nresolution wouldn't just nullify the rule, it would also prevent the\nConsumer Bureau from ever issuing a rule that is ``substantially\nsimilar.'' That means, if Republicans pass this resolution into law,\nthen, for the foreseeable future, consumers will be robbed of important\nlegal rights and generally left at the mercy of industry-friendly\nauditors.\n  Let's be clear. There is absolutely no valid public policy rationale\nfor repealing this rule. It is a part of a pattern from congressional\nRepublicans of irrational hostility toward the Consumer Bureau and its\nwork and a callous disregard for the issues facing America's consumers.\nBut just as they have with the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, Republicans are\npushing an anticonsumer agenda that puts profits over people.\n  Enough is enough. We must hold true to a fundamental principle of our\ndemocracy that each of us has a right to trial if we so choose. The\nrule fully restores this right to American consumers by giving them a\nchoice between arbitration or the free exercise of their Seventh\nAmendment right to a trial by jury through whatever means they choose.\n  So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this senseless and\nharmful resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.\n\n  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the\ngentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), who is the sponsor of the\nlegislation and vice chairman of our Financial Institutions and\nConsumer Credit Subcommittee.\n  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for\nhis leadership on getting this legislation to the floor.\n  Mr. Speaker, the CFPB's anticonsumer, anti-arbitration, pro-trial\nlawyer rule is just the latest example of the harm that can be done by\nan out-of-control, Washington-knows-best bureaucracy. This is a\nteaching moment for the country about how, when elites in Washington\npander to special interests, they end up hurting the very people they\nclaim to be protecting.\n  We all want fairer outcomes for consumers, but the CFPB's unfair,\ndeceptive, and abusive rule will deprive millions of Americans of a\nconvenient, fast, and effective way to resolve their disputes.\n  According to the CFPB's own study, only 13 percent of class actions\nprovided a benefit to consumers, and the average payout was--get this--\n$32. How is that pro-consumer? The same study, on the other hand,\nshowed that consumers who obtain relief through arbitration recover\nover $5,300, on average. Again, that is $5,300 in arbitration against\n$32 through a class action.\n  Meanwhile, trial lawyers in class actions earn about $1 million, on\naverage. Consider that--$1 million for the plaintiffs' lawyers, a $32\ncoupon, $32 cash, for a consumer. In other words, trial lawyers stand\nto earn 31,000 times more than a consumer in a class action.\n  In arbitration, however, consumers get meaningful relief. Yet the\nCFPB has finalized a rule that would effectively get rid of arbitration\nand promote class actions as the preferred dispute resolution process.\nThis hardly seems fair.\n  The CFPB's anti-arbitration rule is an invitation to trial lawyers to\ntake all they can get. Banks, credit unions, and other businesses that\nAmerican consumers interact with on a daily basis will be forced to\nhold greater reserves because of the risk of future costly litigation.\nThis will increase costs for consumers, and it will lead to less access\nor more expensive financial services for millions of Americans. It\ncould also harm the safety and soundness of the financial system,\naccording to the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the main Federal\nbanking regulators.\n  The Dodd-Frank Act requires that any move by the CFPB to regulate\narbitration agreements needs to be in the public interest and for the\nprotection of consumers. I fail to see how forcing consumers to accept\na coupon for their troubles and handing millions of dollars in payouts\nto trial lawyers meets either of those goals.\n  Only at the CFPB could endangering local banks and credit unions and\nrestricting consumer access to financial services be cast as a win for\nthe American people. But, again, this is what you get from the least\naccountable agency in history, an agency with, according to the D.C.\nCircuit Court of Appeals, massive and unchecked power that is headed by\na Director who possesses more unilateral authority than any single\ncommissioner or board member in any other independent agency in the\nU.S. Government.\n  It has long been understood that expeditious, fair resolution of\ndisputes is in the public interest and part of the public policy of\nthis country. The CFPB rule we are reviewing today challenges that\npremise, as did the Dodd-Frank section that spawned this rule. But it\nis the people, acting through their elected Representatives, who have\nthe final say in this matter.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.\n  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania\nan additional 30 seconds.\n  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.J. Res. 111 so that Congress\ncan, through the Congressional Review Act, strike down this unfair,\ndeceptive, and abusive rule and push back against an out-of-control\nagency. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and stand for\nconsumers, fairness, and the American economy.\n  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the\ngentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) be allowed to control the\nremainder of my time.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Texas?\n  There was no objection.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes\nto the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is a\nsenior member of the Financial Services Committee and ranking member of\nthe Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.\n  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking\nmember for yielding to me and for her leadership on this committee and\nin so many other ways.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution. My\nfriends on the other side of the aisle keep talking about what this\nbill does, but let me tell you what it does not do.\n  I want to be absolutely clear that this rule does not say that\narbitration is bad for consumers, and it does not say that consumers\ncan't use arbitration. The only thing that the CFPB's rule says is that\nfinancial institutions cannot force consumers to waive their right to\nparticipate in class action lawsuits and only use arbitration. This\nprotects an individual customer's rights. This is critically important\nbecause the evidence shows that consumers receive a great deal more\nrelief from class action litigation against institutions than they do\nin arbitration.\n  So my friends on the other side of the aisle always say that they\nbelieve in consumer choice and customer choice and that customers\nshould be able to choose what is best for them and not be dictated to\nby this Congress, but mandatory arbitration clauses restrict choice\nfor consumers. They prohibit\n\n[[Page H6271]]\n\nconsumers from choosing class action lawsuits over arbitration.\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman\nan additional 10 seconds.\n  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. The CFPB's rule would restore\nthis consumer choice, further empowering people, customers, empowering\nthem to make their own decisions for themselves. This should be\nwelcomed by any American. This should be welcomed.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may\nconsume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution which would\nblock the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from denying the\nAmerican people use of arbitration as a means to resolve consumer\ncomplaints.\n  I went to the CFPB website last night, and the first thing I saw\nread: ``We are the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a U.S.\nGovernment agency that makes sure banks, lenders, and other financial\ncompanies treat you fairly.''\n  If we handed out grades to government agencies based on their ability\nto meet a mission statement, the CFPB would most decidedly receive an\nF. That is because the Bureau's arbitration rule does absolutely\nnothing to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. In fact, this rule\nis proof of what House Republicans have said for years: the CFPB does\nnot operate in the best interests of the American consumers.\n  The Bureau's own study, which we have cited several times already and\nwill continue to cite, shows that arbitration helps consumers and that\nthe alternatives are far less successful.\n\n                              {time}  1545\n\n  Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that this rule is\nanticonsumer. It hurts the very people the CFPB is supposed to protect,\nand it is yet another example of Washington bureaucrats looking out for\ntheir friends instead of the American people.\n  Today, this body will cast a vote to ensure U.S. consumers are\ntreated fairly and that they have the tools necessary to get the best\npossible settlement in their case.\n  Mr. Speaker, if the CFPB can't adhere to a simple mission statement\nand provide actual consumer protections, Congress will do it for them.\n  I want to again thank Chairman Hensarling and the gentleman from\nPennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) for their leadership on this issue and so\nmany more issues that impact consumers.\n  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I\nreserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are\nsiding with Big Business again, against our consumers.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.\nPelosi), the distinguished leader and a strong supporter of consumers\nand the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.\n  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend my distinguished ranking member of\nthe Financial Services Committee for her brilliant leadership, for her\nbipartisanship, and for always trying to find a way to help America's\nconsumers and protect America's taxpayers.\n  Mr. Speaker, I am very sad today because of what is happening on both\nsides of the Capitol. The cruelty, carelessness, and contempt\nRepublicans are showing for working families boggles the mind. Now,\nSenate Republicans are careening toward shattering the healthcare of\nmillions of Americans, with no regard or appreciation for the\nconsequence.\n  Every chance they get, they stack the deck against America's working\nfamilies. Here, on this side of the Capitol, Republicans are stacking\nthe deck even further against America's working families by seeking to\ndeny those families their fundamental right to obtain justice in court.\n  Eight years ago, unchecked recklessness on Wall Street ignited a\nfinancial meltdown that devastated families across the country.\nDemocrats proudly took bold action and passed Dodd-Frank, the strongest\nset of consumer financial protections in history. But today, House\nRepublicans are once again trying to destroy those protections for\nAmerica's consumers.\n  Last month, Republicans passed what we called the ``Wrong'' CHOICE\nAct, the Dodd-Frank repeal, which was a giveaway to the financial\nindustry at the expense of hardworking families.\n  Republicans are waging a war on the Consumer Financial Protection\nBureau, a bureau that has returned nearly $12 billion to 29 million\nwronged Americans, many of them seniors, veterans, and members of the\nArmed Forces.\n  Forcing consumers into arbitration--indeed, forced arbitration--gives\nfinancial services providers a free pass to get away with abuse. It\ndenies, again, veterans, servicemembers, and seniors justice against\nthe predatory financial marketplace practices. Sadly, it reflects a\nRepublican Party that works relentlessly to empower Wall Street and to\nrig the system against consumers. It denies them consumer class action.\n  More than 800 years ago, the Magna Carta first laid out a basic right\nto justice as the foundation of a fair society. Even under a king, the\nMagna Carta declared, this much was owed the people: ``. . . to no one\nwill we deny or delay right or justice.''\n  Every day, Americans take a similar solemn pledge: ``liberty and\njustice for all.'' Republicans' attack on consumers insult those\npledges and deny Americans their justice.\n  All the American people deserve a better deal than what they are\ngetting from the Republicans in Congress. Democrats are going to fight\nback. We will fight to protect hardworking American consumers. We will\nfight to put leverage back into the hands of the American people.\n  Who has the leverage? If I am a financial institution and I know that\nyou have no leverage, that you cannot act in a class action way, you\ncan just imagine what I have in store for you. But if I think you have\nleverage and you can act in a different way and not be forced into\narbitration, I might have more respect for our financial relationship\nwith each other.\n  We will put the leverage back in the hands of the American people. We\nwill fight this resolution. I call upon my Republican colleagues to\njoin Democrats in voting ``no'' because this bill is an unfair and\nunjust bill.\n  Who is it unfair to? America's working families, America's consumers,\nand America's taxpayers.\n  I urge a ``no'' vote.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nMichigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Capital Markets, Securities,\nand Investments Subcommittee.\n  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about a stacked deck: trial\nattorneys putting cash over conscience. That is not the answer that we\nare in search of, but it is the answer that others who are opposed to\nthis certainly are.\n  The CFPB, the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has a\nstudy itself that shows that consumers who actually use arbitration\nreach more favorable outcomes than those who are roped into lawsuits\nwith cash-starved trial lawyers.\n  It is astounding that only 13 percent of these lawsuits provide any\nbenefit to actual consumers, but the Bureau is still pushing this ill-\nadvised rule. Arbitration decisions also come much more quickly for\nconsumers. Again, the Bureau's own study concludes that arbitration\ndecisions come 12 times faster than lawsuits.\n  So let's review quickly: a faster, more favorable outcome for\nconsumers versus helping trial lawyers line their pockets. This should\nnot be hard.\n  In fact, Mr. Speaker, according to the D.C. Circuit Court, unelected\nBureau Director Cordray has more unilateral authority than any other\nsingle commissioner or board member in any other independent agency in\nthe entire U.S. Government.\n\n  Congress must begin to use its authority to hold this agency\naccountable for its anticonsumer policies and actually provide the\nchecks and balances that our Founders would have intended. That is the\nstacked deck that we have right now, folks.\n  The Bureau's flawed arbitration rule does absolutely nothing to\nprotect the consumers it is charged with protecting. Instead, it is\nnothing more than a windfall for trial lawyers and well-connected\nWashington elites. The\n\n[[Page H6272]]\n\nrule's only accomplishment will be to create more class action\nlawsuits, lining trial lawyers' pockets with more cash while providing\nno real protection to consumers.\n  This anticonsumer rule will have the effect of making consumers wait\nlonger for worse decisions as they seek resolutions for their disputes.\nIn no way, shape, or form does this rule actually do what the Bureau\nwas created to do: protect consumers.\n  This CRA is an important step in allowing Congress to rein in this\nrogue agency. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the\ngentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a senior member of the\nFinancial Services Committee and ranking member of the Small Business\nCommittee.\n  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.\n  Mr. Speaker, the right to seek redress in the courts is one of the\nmost fundamental rights we have as Americans. Unfortunately, companies\nroutinely try to undermine this right by including mandatory\narbitration clauses in contracts we use every day, including credit\ncards, student loans, auto loans, and cell phones.\n  These clauses often state that a consumer must resolve a dispute they\nare having with a third party often chosen by the company at a location\nthat is chosen by the company. Companies also use these clauses to\nblock class action lawsuits brought by consumers.\n  Now, once again, thanks to the CFPB, contracts that have these\nclauses will no longer be permitted to prohibit consumers from banding\ntogether or joining a class action. This rule helps hold companies\naccountable and protects consumers. That is why more than 280 consumer,\ncivil rights, labor, community, and nonprofit organizations support\nthis rule. That is also why unscrupulous firms are lobbying so\naggressively to block this rule.\n  Stand up for consumers. Vote ``no'' on this joint resolution.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nKentucky (Mr. Barr), chairman of the Financial Services Monetary Policy\nand Trade Subcommittee.\n  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: the anti-arbitration rule\nrecently finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not\nconsumer protection. It is a giveaway to special interest trial lawyers\nthat will expose financial firms to ruinous liability; limit consumer\naccess to affordable, high-quality financial services and products; and\nundermine consumers' ability to resolve disputes more quickly and more\ncost-effectively than class action lawsuits.\n  The Bureau's own study found that, while trial lawyers earn millions\nof dollars in fees, in 90 percent of class action lawsuits, consumers\nwere awarded absolutely nothing--nothing. Of the remaining 10 percent,\nthe average payout to consumers was a mere $32. That same CFPB study\nfound that the average arbitration payout was almost $5,400, or over\n150 times more than the average class action recovery.\n  Even more troubling, the Bureau's unilateral decision to ban\nalternative dispute resolution will result in increased litigation\ncosts for financial services firms, undermining their safety and\nsoundness, forcing consumers to pay higher prices and making it more\ndifficult to obtain credit cards and other financial services and\nproducts. That is not pro-consumer.\n  For these reasons, I am a proud cosponsor of Congressman Rothfus'\nbill that would disapprove this misguided resolution to the\nCongressional Review Act.\n  Congress should be making the laws of the land, not unaccountable,\nunelected bureaucrats at the CFPB circumventing the democratic process.\nThat is why, in addition to invalidating this bad anticonsumer, pro-\ntrial lawyer, anti-arbitration rule, Congress must act swiftly to rein\nin the Bureau and subject this agency to the congressional\nappropriations process, reclaiming Congress' constitutional power of\nthe purse over this out-of-control agency.\n  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution of\ndisapproval to block this ill-advised, anticonsumer rule and reclaim\nits authority under Article I of the Constitution.\n\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to\nthe gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a leading member on this\nconsumer issue.\n  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, if you listen to my friends on the other\nside of the aisle, they are going to tell you that having access to a\nlawyer in a court is a bad thing, but it is the foundation of American\njustice. The foundation of American justice is that, if somebody rips\nyou off, you can sue them in court.\n  These arbitration clauses are the fine print, Mr. Speaker, that you\nfind in these contracts that say, if you have a dispute with this\nparticular company, you can only go to arbitration. And these\narbitrators are almost always picked by the company themselves.\n  The fact is this is not justice. It is a railroad court. It is not a\nreal court, and consumers are less well off. That is why over 100,000\nindividual consumers across the country wrote in to support the rule\nduring the public comment period.\n  If my friends on the other side of the aisle are right, how come they\ndon't have 100,000 people saying that their position is correct?\n  The people have spoken. They have engaged in the comment period and\nsaid: We want to be able to go to court to hold these people\naccountable.\n  Wells Fargo ripped off literally hundreds of thousands of Americans.\nIn 2 million transactions, they opened up accounts people never asked\nfor.\n  If you sue them, you might just be limited to an arbitration clause,\nwhich limits your award, and they pick the judge. Why not be able to\njoin with other Americans and sue in court the good, old-fashioned way:\nget some discovery, get some money back, get some justice? This is what\nit is all about.\n  We believe that the American people deserve to take them to court if\nthey take your money and rip you off. That is what we are standing up\nfor today.\n  This is nothing but a U.S. Chamber, Big Business giveaway that they\nare talking about. We stand on the side of American consumers. American\nconsumers want to take them to court.\n\n                              {time}  1600\n\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished\ngentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), vice chairman of the Oversight\nand Investigations Subcommittee.\n  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, this resolution of disapproval will repeal\nthe CFPB's Arbitration Agreements rule, a rule that consumers are going\nto be able to be protected by, according to the CFPB. That is their\nstated mission: to protect the consumers.\n  Let us look at the data that has been provided by the CFPB. Just 13\npercent of the class action suits actually provided a benefit to the\nconsumers. And what was that whopping benefit? Thirty-two dollars.\nThirty-two dollars that they are willing to celebrate over as\ncompensation for people who have been harmed.\n  Let us look at the other side of the ledger. What are trial lawyers\nreceiving? On average, $1 million. So while our friends may want to\nstand up for the trial lawyers, for their million-dollar paychecks, we\nare going to choose to stand with the American consumer to make sure\nthat they are going to be able to receive the justice that they\ndeserve, and one way to be able to do that is going to be through\narbitration.\n  When we look at the CFPB's own statistics, the average arbitration\npayout is not your $32. It is almost $5,400, which has been received in\nterms of compensation that is going to be paid.\n  This latest rule, Mr. Speaker, joins a growing list of CFPB actions\nthat have hurt consumers. Since the Bureau's inception, they have\nrolled out rules and regulations 3\\1/2\\ times faster than other Federal\nagencies, and according to the research from the American Action Forum,\njust 26 of these regulations have added an additional $2.8 billion in\nregulatory costs.\n  The practical effect of the Bureau's actions are measurable,\nespecially in rural districts like mine: no mortgage credit for young\nfamilies trying to purchase their first home, community banks that\nspend more time on compliance than serving their community, and small\nbusinesses that cannot get the capital that they need to grow.\n  The Arbitration Agreements rule is nothing more than the latest\nsleight-\n\n[[Page H6273]]\n\nof-hand by the Bureau taking money out of pockets of consumers and\ngifting it to trial lawyers.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Valadao). The time of the gentleman has\nexpired.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the\ngentleman.\n  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, the CFPB would lead you to believe that a\nmultiyear class action lawsuit--and that is according to the CFPB's own\nestimates, average attorneys' fees of $388 million, and that is a win\nfor consumers.\n  The judgment is not on the side of consumers. They may want to stand\nfor the trial lawyers. We are going to stand for the consumers. Let's\nrepeal this and institute the CRA for the arbitration rule.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the\ngentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the\nFinancial Services Committee and a strong progressive member.\n  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.\n  Let us be honest. There are no legitimate consumer groups who support\nrepealing this rule. The consumer groups are actually with the\nconsumers, and they want this rule.\n  So let us be clear. This rule is being repealed for the biggest\nfinancial institutions in the country.\n  Let us be clear. I do not oppose arbitration as an option. I do\noppose it as the only alternative allowed. Very simply, you go to a\nbank, they open up a bank account in your name, they steal your money,\nthey move it over. If you catch them, you go to the bank, you file\narbitration, they give you your $100 back and maybe a dollar's worth of\ninterest, and it is over.\n  They don't tell you there is 2 million, 3 million, 5 million other\npeople with the same situation who don't know about it. Because it is\narbitration, no one talks about it. It is done in private.\n  I am not opposed to arbitration as a way to avoid court when\npossible. I am vehemently opposed to taking options away from consumers\nthat say you cannot individually stand for your rights. That is what\nthis bill does. That is all it does.\n  If you care about consumers, you would work with us to try to find a\nsimpler way. You don't want to do it. You want to help the big boys.\nGood luck.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished\ngentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman of the Monetary\nPolicy and Trade Subcommittee.\n  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Consumer Financial\nProtection Bureau implemented their most recent arbitration rule. While\nthis rule claims consumer protection, it does the very opposite. It\nwill cost Americans more of their hard-earned money and time.\n  The CFPB is arguably the most powerful and yet unaccountable\ngovernment agency in the history of this country. By intentional\ndesign, the CFPB is not accountable to Congress or the taxpayer.\n  According to the D.C. Circuit, the unelected CFPB Director, Richard\nCordray, ``possesses more unilateral authority than any single\ncommissioner or board member in any other independent agency in the\nU.S. Government.''\n  What does this mean exactly? Well, it means that no one is checking\nthe Director's actions. The CFPB is able to evade all limits and\nrestraints proposed by the government. Because of this, Director\nCordray is only looking out for one person--that is himself.\n  The CFPB chose to ignore their own study because the results did not\nfit the narrative they were trying to impose on Americans. This study\nshowed that the average consumer receives $5,400--we have heard this\nalready--in cash relief when using arbitration, as opposed to an\ninadequate $32 through class action suits.\n  In addition, the study concluded that the use of arbitration produced\na higher recovery rate and shorter timeline for the consumer, and that\nis good. Regardless of this study, Director Cordray has refused to\nacknowledge that taxpayers will feel the immediate damage that comes\nfrom limiting their options by being forced to pay more for less.\n\n  Bottom line, this is just another example of overregulation by the\nCFPB taking away the option of arbitration that will hurt all\nAmericans.\n  As a small business owner, I have gone both ways. Arbitration wins\nevery single time for those involved. It is called fairness.\n  Mr. Speaker, I commend Representative Keith Rothfus for leading the\nway on this much-needed CRA. I encourage all my colleagues to join us\nin repealing this harmful rule and ensuring the Bureau is not able to\nissue any similar rule relating to arbitration.\n  In God We Trust.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the\ngentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a senior member of the\nFinancial Services Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee.\n  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, which is more fraudulent? On the one hand,\nwe have Wells Fargo, 3 million phony accounts, and then they use their\nforced arbitration provision to tell people that if you signed up for a\nlegitimate account and there was some language in there that created\narbitration, that it even applies to the phony accounts.\n  Well, what is even more fraudulent? The supporters of this bill who\nsay that the rule deprives people of the option of arbitration. It\nhardly does that. It simply prohibits forced arbitration.\n  But more important are the numbers. Arbitration is typically used by\nsomeone with a $50,000 claim. Class action lawsuits, it is 50,000\npeople with a $32 claim. So then they say: Well, arbitration provides\nmore. Of course it provides more. Because the average person in the\npool has got a $50,000 claim, and class action only produces $32\nbecause it is designed for a situation where you have a million\nplaintiffs or a half a million plaintiffs each with a $32 claim.\n  You cannot compare the two except to say that arbitration is\nunavailable to anyone with a claim of less than $1,000.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished\ngentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), a member of the Financial\nServices Committee.\n  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 111.\n  Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a\nrule forbidding financial service firms from including a mandatory\narbitration clause in contracts with consumers. The rule is not only\nbad for consumers, it highlights the need for accountability in\nWashington.\n  Unelected bureaucrats wield too much power with too little oversight,\nand this rule would force consumer class actions and eliminate\narbitration options. As an attorney, I know that many class action\nlawsuits are all too often more about cash for plaintiffs' trial\nlawyers than protection for consumers. In fact, the CFPB's own study\neven admitted that arbitration is faster, less expensive, and pays out\nconsumers much higher compared to the class action lawsuit.\n  Of course, many trial lawyers oppose arbitration because it denies\nthem of exorbitant class action lawsuit fees. It is an inexpensive\nalternative to courtroom litigation.\n  If consumers are lucky enough to be part of the successful class\naction, the average individual payment is, as my colleague just pointed\nout, only about $32. Remarkably, the trial lawyers raked in $425\nmillion in class action fees between 2010 and 2013, according to a\nstudy by Forbes.\n  Of the arbitrations reviewed by the CFPB in which consumers were\nvictorious, the average individual payout was $5,389. Why would the\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau want to take a fair and elective\nalternative for resolving disputes away from consumers when they\nbenefit from them?\n  The consumers have the option to do as they please, but I believe the\nCFPB's antiarbitration rule would do nothing but harm consumers, line\nthe pocket of trial lawyers, and literally take money out of the hands\nof consumers.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the\ngentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial\nServices Committee.\n  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J.\nRes. 111 to block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's\narbitration rule.\n\n[[Page H6274]]\n\n  The CFPB is charged with protecting consumers from unfair and abusive\nbehaviors by banks and financial firms. To that end, the CFPB's rules\nwould prohibit provisions requiring that a bank customer surrender the\nright to participate in class actions.\n  This practice undermines a consumer's right to be compensated for\ndamages, particularly when they get nickeled and dimed by the fine\nprint in financial contracts.\n  Class actions often represent the only realistic option for consumers\nwho are ripped off to the tune of a few dozen or a few hundred dollars,\nand they reduce the burden on the courts by consolidating claims,\nthereby saving money for both plaintiffs and defendants.\n  Opponents of the CFPB's rule hope that, by prohibiting the\nconsolidation of claims, they can make potential damages so small that\nthe individual claims are not viable.\n  Meritorious claims from aggrieved plaintiffs who have suffered actual\ndamages would go uncompensated, and equally importantly, wrongdoers\nwould go unpunished.\n  I urge my colleagues to stand up for consumers and ensure that they\ncan be fairly compensated by actual damages and wrongdoers punished.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished\ngentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), a member of the Financial Services\nCommittee.\n  Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 111, which\nwill block the CFPB's harmful arbitration rule.\n  I want to start with a little story. Last year, I opened up the mail,\nand I got a wonderful surprise. I got a check for $3.92. Apparently, I\nwas part of some class action lawsuit, didn't know it, dug into the\nfacts, didn't feel I had been harmed, didn't know who the attorneys\nwere, but I got $3.92, almost enough to buy a latte. I did a little\ndigging around and turns out the lawyers representing the plaintiff\nclass made millions of dollars.\n  Now, we have heard a lot of conflicting stories here today about this\nbill being harmful to consumers. Here are the facts.\n  In a class action lawsuit, a typical consumer gets $32; in\narbitration, a typical consumer gets $5,400; in a class action lawsuit,\nit takes 12 times longer for the consumer to get the money.\n  But how can this be? Well, in my prior life, I represented a lot of\nclients who were involved in class action lawsuits. Here is your\ntypical class action lawsuit.\n\n  It involves a highly technical violation, not the Wells Fargo\nexample, where there is little or no harm to the consumer, goes on for\nyears, costs millions of dollars in legal fees, and at the end of the\nday, there is a settlement for $3.92.\n  I will make a deal with my friends on the other side of the aisle. I\nwill buy anyone a latte who comes clean with the American people and\ntells them why they are opposing this bill.\n  The reason why they are opposing this bill is the Trial Lawyers\nAssociation makes millions of dollars, and that money lines the pockets\nof their campaign coffers. It is not about consumers. It is about\nlawyers protecting lawyers, and it is about protecting the bureaucrats\nin the swamp.\n  I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting this joint\nresolution.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of\nmy colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle talking about this $32.\n  Republicans keep discussing that consumers get $32 in class action,\nbut they ignore how few consumers win in arbitration. Big banks win\n93.1 percent of the time in arbitration. The deck is stacked against\nconsumers, not Wall Street.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.\nJohnson), a leading member on this consumer arbitration issue.\n  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congresswoman, and I\nrise in strong support for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on\nthe important topic of forced arbitration.\n  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 111. Forced\narbitration is a modern twist to an old trick, tricking people out of\ntheir day in court. Forced arbitration tricks people out of their\nconstitutional right to a jury trial on their claim against corporate\nspecial interests. Forced arbitration prohibits consumers from taking\ntheir case to court for a jury trial and forces the consumer into the\nback room with a secret arbitrator selected by the corporation who then\ndecides the case for the corporation. It doesn't take a genius to know\nwhat happens when you get behind those closed doors.\n  The outcome will be against the consumer. It is not fair; it is not\nright; and it is not justice.\n\n                              {time}  1615\n\n  Corporate special interests trick consumers into giving up their\nrights to a jury trial by hiding forced arbitration clauses in the fine\nprint of consumer agreements that they require consumers to accept when\nthere is no other choice.\n  Consider the latest example from Wells Fargo, which was caught red-\nhanded engaging in unscrupulous banking practices to the detriment of\ntheir customers. They were ruining the credit of their customers by\nopening millions of fake accounts in the names of their unsuspecting\ncustomers.\n  When Wells Fargo got caught, their customers were barred from going\nto court because they had unknowingly agreed to the forced arbitration.\nIf this is not adding insult to injury, I don't know what is.\n  Congress authorized CFPB to consider banning or limiting forced\narbitration in cases of consumer financial products or services. The\nCFPB found that forced arbitration clauses denied consumers the ability\nto obtain justice. That is why Congress should vote in approval of the\nrule for the CFPB and reject H.J. Res. 111.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each\nside?\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 6 minutes\nremaining. The gentlewoman from California has 13\\3/4\\ minutes\nremaining.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nGeorgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a member of the Financial Services Committee.\n  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to\nme.\n  Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan had a unique gift of communicating in a\nway that reflected the ideas and the thoughts of the American people.\nHe also understood that out-of-control government bureaucracy had a\nwell-deserved reputation of working in its own best interest, not in\nthe best interest of the American people.\n  President Reagan best defined this mistrust of government when he\nstated: ``The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm\nfrom the government and I'm here to help.''\n  The skepticism Americans have of their too-big-to-be-useful\ngovernment has only increased since Reagan spoke those words. And it is\nrules and regulations, such as the one we are discussing here today,\nthat fosters the distrust Americans have of their government. The\nCFPB's decision to ban arbitration with preference to class action\nlawsuits will cause harm to both consumers and businesses.\n  Arbitration has proven to be an effective tool that benefits both\nparties in a dispute, and has shown to be more favorable to consumers\nthan traditional litigation in the courts. The average compensation, as\nyou have heard, to consumers when using arbitration is $5,400. In\ncontrast, the average settlement for consumers in a class action\nlawsuit is $32.\n  Not only is arbitration more financially beneficial to consumers, it\nis less costly and less time-consuming than fighting through the\ncourts. Disputes which use arbitration are usually settled in 2 to 7\nmonths; however, lawsuits can take an average of 2 years to settle.\n  Even the CFPB has recognized that arbitration is more efficient, less\ncostly, and more beneficial to consumers; so it boggles the mind trying\nto figure out why they are pursuing a course that would harm Americans.\n  It is the responsibility of Congress to rein in government when it is\noutside the constitutional boundaries of its office or pursues a course\nof action that is harmful to the citizens. In this case, the CFPB is in\nviolation of both of these principles.\n  I support this legislation that would roll back the CFPB's ban on\narbitration.\n\n[[Page H6275]]\n\n  Again, I thank the chairman for the time, and I thank the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) for sponsoring this bill.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the\nopposite side of the aisle hate Mr. Cordray so much because he has been\nso effective, returning $12 billion to consumers, that they would harm\nthe American public rather than admit that they are wrong.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.\nScott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the\nWorkforce.\n  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for\nyielding.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.J. Res. 111, which will\noverturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule, prohibiting\nforced arbitration for many consumer contracts, including student loan\ncontracts.\n  Banks and large corporations often take advantage of ordinary\nAmericans by burying forced arbitration clauses and boiler plate fine\nprint in standard contracts.\n  When corporations force consumers to secretly arbitrate with\nhandpicked firms, which rely on those same corporations for repeat\nbusiness, the system is rigged.\n  Take, for example, Matthew, who enrolled in a for-profit aviation\nschool that closed before Matthew could finish his degree. At the\nrecommendation of the school, he had taken out $56,000 in private\nstudent loans.\n  With debt and no credential because the school had closed, Matthew\njoined a class action with thousands of other students. But due to a\nclass action ban in the loan contract, the court ruled that thousands\nof individual students must individually settle their disputes with the\nbank in arbitration.\n  That means each individual student had to hire their own lawyer, take\ntime off to present their case, and everything else you have to do to\npresent a case. That is why most victims of this kind of fraud will\nnever collect what they are owed.\n  If each victim only loses a little bit, virtually nobody will bring a\nclaim. With the class action, at least you can achieve an injunction so\nthe corporation will stop. Each plaintiff might receive a little bit,\nbut without the class action, the corporation is free to continue the\nfraud.\n\n  Without this rule, the banks will continue to use forced arbitration\nclauses to advance their special interests at the expense of innocent\nvictims who will be ripped off.\n  Mr. Speaker, that is why we need to stand with consumers. I urge my\ncolleagues to do that: stand with consumers, reject this repeal of the\nimportant rule, and vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 111.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to\nthe gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the ranking member on\nthe Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.\n  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to\nme.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 111, which\nwould repeal protections for our men and women in uniform and other\neveryday consumers against the use of forced arbitration by megabanks\nand other financial service providers.\n  Earlier this month, the CFPB finalized strong rules to protect the\nrights of hardworking Americans to band together in our justice system\nto hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. This protection is\nparticularly critical for our Nation's men and women in uniform and\ntheir loved ones.\n  For over a decade, under both Democratic and Republican\nadministrations, the Defense Department has warned Congress about the\neffects of forced arbitration in servicemembers' contracts. Often\nburied in the fine print of financial contracts, these clauses waive\nthe rights of veterans and servicemembers to a day in court before a\ndispute even arises.\n  If these arbitration provisions were so beneficial to consumers and\nto servicemen and -women, why do you have to sneak these mandatory\nprovisions into the contract?\n  There is overwhelming support for this rule among military service\norganizations who agree that forced arbitration clauses block access to\nthe justice system and funnel the claims of servicemembers into\nprivate, costly arbitration systems.\n  Since the Second World War, Congress has continuously expanded and\nstrengthened the rights and protections for servicemembers and veterans\nout of a sense of obligation that we must honor and protect our men and\nwomen in uniform. But this resolution would end vital financial\nprotections for those who have sacrificed so much in service to our\ncountry and the fundamental idea that we are a nation of laws and\ninstitutions that guarantee the rights and prosperity of every\nAmerican.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, to\npreserve this rule, to stand up for the men and women in uniform, to\nstand up for the American consumer, and to stop being errand boys for\nthe megabanks.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my\ntime.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the\ngentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), the leader of the Democracy\nReform Task Force.\n  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to\nme.\n  Mr. Speaker, here we are again: the special interests are running the\nshow in Washington. Pointblank, this resolution will make it harder for\nAmericans to get justice. Specifically, this will unwind critical new\nrules that allow financial consumers to take collective action. You\nheard that right. This is an effort to take away your ability to sue\nbig banks when they run you over. Instead, the majority wants to force\nyou into unfair, bureaucratic arbitration processes that severely\ndisadvantage you in favor of the Wall Street firms.\n  I always ask the same question when the Republicans bring these\nmeasures up here to gut consumer protections: Who back home is asking\nfor this? Who is coming to the townhalls and begging to repeal this\nrule? Who is asking you to make it harder to seek damages when someone\nis being harmed by a big bank?\n  Nobody is asking for this. In fact, as Keith Ellison said a few\nminutes ago, there are 100,000 people who are beseeching us to support\nthis rule to protect them out there. Nobody is asking to repeal this\nrule or shut this rule down.\n  I know who wants it here in Washington. It is the big money special\ninterests, the so-called swamp. We can't let this happen. The American\npeople should be furious.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless, shameful\neffort.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nTennessee (Mr. Kustoff).\n  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of\nH.J. Res. 111, which uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove\nand nullify the rule issued by the CFPB on July 10, 2017.\n  Time and time again, we have seen the CFPB abuse their power and\nauthority to unilaterally issue rules without seeking any input from\nCongress.\n  Since its establishment, the CFPB has displayed complete disregard\nfor due process, as it has issued enforcement actions against companies\nthat are unjustly accused of wrongdoing.\n  Frankly, the CFPB's recent antiarbitration rule is no different. This\nrule would change the ability for consumers to resolve disputes with\nfinancial services companies through arbitration, which has\nconsistently provided consumers with expedient, efficient, and less\ncostly resolutions.\n  In short, making consumers pay more for less is the exact opposite of\nconsumer protection, and is the reason we need to reject this harmful\nrule.\n  I applaud the work of Chairman Hensarling and the other members of\nthis committee on this work to hold the CFPB accountable.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the\ngentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the\nHigher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee.\n\n  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as representatives of the\npeople, our job is to protect working families. So let's be clear, we\nshould be protecting\n\n[[Page H6276]]\n\nconsumers, including members of our military who sacrifice so much for\nus.\n  When a predatory lender forces arbitration, it puts consumers into a\nsystem where their grievances don't get the fair treatment of a court.\nInstead, a law firm handpicked by the corporation will decide the\noutcome, putting the consumer at an extreme disadvantage from the\nstart.\n  The CFPB issued a long, overdue role to prohibit this unfair practice\nthat benefits wealthy special interests at the expense of the American\npeople.\n  So why would we take a step back?\n  Even worse, these predatory lenders often prey on our military, so we\nshould be protecting our military to have transparent and just legal\noptions. Forced arbitration is just the opposite.\n  Mr. Speaker, we need a process that works for consumers. This\nresolution will only bring us back to a broken system.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in striking down this\nresolution.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each\nside?\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 3 minutes\nremaining. The gentlewoman from California has 7\\1/2\\ minutes\nremaining.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the\ngentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member of the\nVeterans' Affairs Committee.\n  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose this CRA\nopposition, which rolls back critical protections for American\nconsumers.\n  Passing this resolution would set a nearly irreversible policy that\nallows Wall Street companies to commit pervasive fraud while avoiding\nthe accountability that comes with a class action lawsuit.\n  Access to our courts and the transparency and fairness they provide\nis a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution. It is a sad irony\nthat many of those that would be denied their constitutional rights\nthrough this resolution are the servicemembers and veterans who have\nrisked their lives to protect those rights.\n  When the American consumer takes on a Wall Street corporation, it is\nalready a David versus Goliath situation. Now Republicans want to steal\nDavid's slingshot. Mr. Speaker, don't let them steal David's slingshot.\nDon't let them steal America's slingshot.\n  Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject this\nresolution.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my\ntime.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the\ngentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a senior member on the\nCommittee on Education and the Workforce.\n\n                              {time}  1630\n\n  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 111, a\nresolution that will undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau\nand allow financial institutions to continue taking advantage of\nconsumers.\n  The CFPB's arbitration rule protects consumers, including students,\nservicemembers, and seniors, by allowing them access to justice in\ncourt and to participate in class action lawsuits against unscrupulous\nfinancial institutions.\n  I am a former consumer protection lawyer. I have no problem with\narbitration clauses when they are agreed to by parties with equal\nbargaining power, but we have seen what happens when institutions\ninclude nonnegotiable forced arbitration clauses in the fine print of\nconsumer contracts.\n  Private student loan providers, payday lenders, credit card\ncompanies, and banks have consumers sign away their rights to access\nthe court system when they are cheated. The CFPB rule will address that\ninequity and provide consumers with a remedy.\n  We must reject this effort to roll back consumer protections and\nallow the CFPB to continue to do their important work. Please vote\n``no.''\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the\ngentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin), a member of the House Armed\nServices Committee.\n  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution, which would stack the\ndeck against hardworking families, small businesses, and nearly any\ngroup or individual who needs financial services.\n  Mr. Speaker, universal access to fair and impartial courts is a\nprinciple that is enshrined in both the Sixth and Seventh Amendments of\nour Constitution. It is the cornerstone of our justice system. Without\nthat access, we cannot hold bad actors accountable; families and small\nbusinesses suffer; justice is denied.\n  Forced arbitration clauses protect the powerful by denying Americans\ntheir day in court. Big corporations have enormous leverage. They offer\nessential services and have few competitors.\n  For many consumers, having a cell phone or a checking account means\naccepting arbitration. Often there are no other options.\n  The CFPB has sought to correct that injustice. The Bureau's\narbitration rule ensures that those who are wronged by a financial\ninstitution have meaningful recourse. At Wells Fargo and elsewhere,\nrecent events have shown why that recourse is essential.\n  When our courts are out of the picture, accountability can slip;\ncutting corners becomes less risky and more attractive.\n  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the\ngentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), a member of the Committee\non Appropriations and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.\n  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.\n  Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about us Americans that separates us\nfrom the rest of the world: we have a Bill of Rights in this country,\nand it includes the Seventh Amendment, and my colleague, Mr. McEachin,\njust mentioned it, the Seventh Amendment: the right of trial by jury\nshall be preserved. It is what makes us Americans.\n  And watch out. When you hear them attacking legal fees and lawyers\nmaking money, that means they are attacking your rights. They are\ntrying to take them away.\n  For too long, big banks have gotten away with taking advantage of\ntheir customers, from fake accounts to subprime mortgages. American\nconsumers have suffered a great deal of harm at the hands of Wall\nStreet, and now we have a rule that will help consumers fight back. It\nis a rule from the Consumer Bureau that fixes a flaw in the judicial\nsystem that keeps victims from accessing justice by banding together\nwith class actions.\n  Don't let them take your rights away. Let's fight this resolution.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the\ngentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a Member who is outraged by\nthe attack on consumers by the opposite side of the aisle.\n  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be outraged on this one.\n  About a month ago, the majority party took away the ability of people\nusing the internet to keep their information private. You allowed every\nperson on the internet, every company, to access everything about\nanybody who uses the internet. The country hated it. During that entire\ndebate, you told America: We are out to protect you; we are protecting\nyou.\n  No one believed it, and here we are again today. You are out to\nprotect the consumers, with no consumer groups who agree with you. You\nare basically telling people: Trust us more than you trust yourselves;\ntherefore, in order to do that, we will take away your right to protect\nyourself in a court of law.\n  No one buys it. No one buys it. Leave us alone. Let me defend myself.\nI don't need you to defend me. America wants to be left alone. Leave\nthem alone.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks\nto the Chair.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, that is what arbitration is all about,\nto allow the individual to defend himself.\n\n[[Page H6277]]\n\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am now prepared to\nclose, and I yield myself the balance of my time.\n  Mr. Speaker, today we have heard Democrats speak about the importance\nof the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule to stop forced\narbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products and\nthe harm that would result from this joint resolution to repeal the\nrule.\n  Forced arbitration clauses severely limit consumers' legal rights and\nprevent groups of consumers from holding financial institutions\naccountable for wrongdoing. The Consumer Bureau's rule helps to ensure\nthat financial institutions are held accountable and fully protects the\nlegal rights of consumers, including servicemembers and veterans.\n  The majority has shamefully moved to nullify the Consumer Bureau's\ngood work in a move that ultimately enables financial institutions to\nget off the hook when they commit wrongdoing, with less redress for\nconsumers.\n  Studies have shown that forced arbitration favors big business and\nresults in less compensation for American consumers who have been\nabused or defrauded, if they receive any at all.\n  This resolution steamrolls over the Consumer Bureau's sensible rule\nwithout regard for the harm that will result for American consumers and\nfamilies. This is also despite the broad support for the rule from\nconsumer advocacy, civil rights, and faith-based groups, legal\nscholars, and advocates for servicemembers.\n  Congress must not curtail the legal rights of consumers, must not\nrepeal the Consumer Bureau's forced arbitration rule. Vote to protect\nconsumer rights. Vote to fully restore the American principle of right\nto trial by jury. Vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 111.\n  Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I keep hearing my\ncolleagues talk about how fast consumers are taken care of under the\narbitration rule. Yes, because they are getting railroaded.\n  As I mentioned, they are in the back room without representation.\nThese are people who have been forced to sign these arbitration\nagreements, not even knowing that they signed them.\n  Most people who go out now to get a credit card or to get a loan of\nsome kind, they are forced into these agreements and they don't even\nknow it. They are shocked and surprised when they cannot join with\nothers who have been ripped off in class action lawsuits.\n  So don't pay attention to all of the information that you have\nreceived from the opposite side. Remember that the banks and big\nbusinesses win 93.1 percent of the time, not consumers.\n  Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of consumers or are you\nprotecting big business?\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the\ngentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial\nServices Committee, and I think we are going to have some answers to\nthose important questions that the ranking member just asked.\n  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.\nLuetkemeyer) for yielding, and I appreciate his leadership on this\nissue, as I do the gentleman from Pennsylvania as well.\n  Mr. Speaker, since 1925, this institution, the United States\nCongress, has recognized the right of consumers to engage in\narbitration, which we know for so many consumers is their avenue for\nredress of grievance. We know that this has been upheld on multiple\noccasions by the Supreme Court. We have almost 100 years of precedence.\nAnd now this rogue agency, the Orwellian-named CFPB, decides to\npromulgate a rule, and it is not even an agency. Mr. Speaker, it is one\nunelected, unaccountable individual who has decided that Americans no\nlonger have the right to contract, they no longer have the right to\ndecide that they would prefer to arbitrate instead of go through a\nclass action lawsuit.\n  Mr. Speaker, let's let people know what this is truly about. What\nthis is about is the trial attorneys relief act. Theirs are the voices\nthat we are hearing on the other side of the aisle, and we are hearing\nthem loud and clear, because what we know is that, in class action\nlawsuits, consumers end up with almost nothing and the trial lawyers\nmake out like bandits.\n  Even in the CFPB's own study, they figured out that those who go\nthrough class action are doing well to get $32.35, yet the trial\nlawyers make out with millions. We also know in the CFPB's own study\nthat those who went through arbitration ended up with settlements of\n$5,389.\n  Mr. Speaker, here are just a couple of different class action\nlawsuits that have happened recently. A Dell Computers class action\nlawsuit: $500,000 for class members, $7 million for the lawyers; Subway\nsandwiches: $50,000 for the class members, $500,000 for the trial\nattorneys.\n  Oh, here is a good one, Mr. Speaker, Coca-Cola class action: $0 for\nclass members, $1.2 million for the lawyers; L.A. Fitness\nInternational: $7,000 for class members, $200,000 for lawyers.\n  Mr. Speaker, the American people are not foolish. It is time to drain\nthe swamp and to start off with the bureaucracy that is taking away\ntheir rights to have dispute resolution through arbitration. They are\ntired of seeing others go and kowtow to the trial lawyers lobby in this\ntown to give them what they want. It is time to make sure that\nAmericans' consumer rights can be protected, and so it is time that we\npass this Congressional Review Act for all Americans.\n  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I\nhave worked long and hard to preserve the availability of fair,\naffordable arbitration to consumers. Hearings before the Judiciary\nCommittee have demonstrated repeatedly that arbitration allows\nconsumers to resolve disputes quickly, fairly and at lower costs than\nlitigation. It also helps consumers to preserve relationships with\ncompanies with whom they contract, by avoiding the acrimony of\nlitigation.\n  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Arbitration Rule threatens\nto undo all of that, not to benefit consumers, but to benefit one\nspecial interest--the plaintiffs class-action trial bar.\n  By prohibiting consumers and companies from contracting to arbitrate\nindividual matters, rather than litigate disputes through class\nactions, it ensures a steady stream of class-action litigation--and\nhandsome class-action attorneys' fees--for the trial bar. But for\nconsumers, it burdens their freedom of contract, subjects them to long,\ndrawn-out class-action litigation, and sets up scenarios in which large\nportions of any recoveries they obtain will go, not to them, but to\nclass-action lawyers with whom they are forced to deal.\n  For companies, meanwhile, the Rule threatens to force them into\nchoosing whether to continue to fund their arbitration programs or,\ninstead, to shutter those programs to preserve funds for high-dollar\nclass-action defense.\n  I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution and against the\nCFPB's special-interest, anti-consumer rule.\n  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J.\nRes. 111, which would repeal the Arbitration Rule recently created by\nthe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.\n  The Arbitration Rule is an important victory for consumer protection,\nbecause it prevents banks and other financial institutions from\nstripping consumers of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to a day\nin court.\n  The ``forced arbitration'' clauses that this rule addresses prevents\na consumer from filing a lawsuit against a company, and always forces\nthe consumer into a private and confidential arbitration process that\noperates outside of the legal system.\n  Additionally, these clauses, which are often buried in the fine-print\nof agreements and do not allow the consumer any authority to change\nthem, frequently prohibit class-action claims.\n  This means that even if there are thousands of consumers who have\nbeen hurt by a bank or financial institution in a similar way, they\nwould not be able to join their complaints into one case.\n  By forcing each and every consumer to endure arbitration on his or\nher own, outcomes for cases with the exact same complaints will vary\nunjustly, because arbitration does not set legal precedent.\n  Mr. Speaker, these forced arbitration clauses essentially amount to a\nrip-off clause.\n  It is clear that this rip-off clause is stacked against the consumer\nand is meant to shield predatory banks, payday lenders, credit card\ncompanies and other financial institutions from accountability when\nthey cheat or plunder consumers.\n  In April of this year, it was revealed that Wells Fargo opened as\nmany as 149,857 fraudulent bank accounts in my home state of Texas,\nincluding many in Houston.\n\n[[Page H6278]]\n\n  But the rip-off clause prevented consumers from getting justice.\n  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Arbitration Rule\nrightfully aims to protect consumers from being forced to sign away\ntheir legal rights when doing something as simple as opening a bank\naccount, obtaining a credit card, financing a home, or obtaining a\nprivate student loan.\n  The CFPB's Arbitration Rule makes it easier for consumers to file a\nlawsuit if they are harmed by a bank or financial institution, and\nincreases transparency in the arbitration process.\n  The Arbitration Rule strongly serves the public interest.\n  H.J. Res. 111 is only the latest in a long series of attacks that\nRepublicans have leveled against the Consumer Financial Protection\nBureau since its very creation in 2011.\n  The Bureau is a tremendous ally in the fight for consumer protection,\nand it is imperative that its work be allowed to continue.\n  It is unconscionable that Republicans are working so hard to repeal a\nrule that only serves to protect consumers from harmful and predatory\npractices by the financial services industry.\n  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this harmful\nresolution.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.\n  Pursuant to House Resolution 468, the previous question is ordered.\n  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint\nresolution.\n  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third\ntime, and was read the third time.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint\nresolution.\n  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that\nthe ayes appeared to have it.\n\n                             Recorded Vote\n\n  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded\nvote.\n  A recorded vote was ordered.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-\nminute vote on passage of H.J. Res. 111 will be followed by a 5-minute\nvote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3364.\n  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,\nnoes 190, not voting 12, as follows:\n\n                             [Roll No. 412]\n\n                               AYES--231\n\n     Abraham\n     Aderholt\n     Allen\n     Amash\n     Amodei\n     Arrington\n     Babin\n     Bacon\n     Banks (IN)\n     Barletta\n     Barr\n     Barton\n     Bergman\n     Biggs\n     Bilirakis\n     Bishop (MI)\n     Bishop (UT)\n     Black\n     Blackburn\n     Blum\n     Bost\n     Brady (TX)\n     Brat\n     Bridenstine\n     Brooks (AL)\n     Brooks (IN)\n     Buck\n     Bucshon\n     Budd\n     Burgess\n     Byrne\n     Calvert\n     Carter (GA)\n     Carter (TX)\n     Chabot\n     Cheney\n     Coffman\n     Cole\n     Collins (GA)\n     Collins (NY)\n     Comer\n     Comstock\n     Conaway\n     Cook\n     Cramer\n     Crawford\n     Culberson\n     Curbelo (FL)\n     Davidson\n     Davis, Rodney\n     Denham\n     Dent\n     DeSantis\n     DesJarlais\n     Diaz-Balart\n     Donovan\n     Duffy\n     Duncan (SC)\n     Duncan (TN)\n     Dunn\n     Emmer\n     Estes (KS)\n     Farenthold\n     Faso\n     Ferguson\n     Fitzpatrick\n     Fleischmann\n     Flores\n     Fortenberry\n     Foxx\n     Franks (AZ)\n     Frelinghuysen\n     Gaetz\n     Gallagher\n     Garrett\n     Gianforte\n     Gibbs\n     Gohmert\n     Goodlatte\n     Gosar\n     Gowdy\n     Granger\n     Graves (GA)\n     Graves (LA)\n     Griffith\n     Grothman\n     Guthrie\n     Handel\n     Harper\n     Harris\n     Hartzler\n     Hensarling\n     Herrera Beutler\n     Hice, Jody B.\n     Higgins (LA)\n     Hill\n     Holding\n     Hollingsworth\n     Hudson\n     Huizenga\n     Hultgren\n     Hunter\n     Hurd\n     Issa\n     Jenkins (KS)\n     Jenkins (WV)\n     Johnson (LA)\n     Johnson (OH)\n     Johnson, Sam\n     Jordan\n     Joyce (OH)\n     Katko\n     Kelly (MS)\n     Kelly (PA)\n     King (IA)\n     King (NY)\n     Kinzinger\n     Knight\n     Kustoff (TN)\n     Labrador\n     LaHood\n     LaMalfa\n     Lamborn\n     Lance\n     Latta\n     Lewis (MN)\n     LoBiondo\n     Long\n     Loudermilk\n     Love\n     Lucas\n     Luetkemeyer\n     MacArthur\n     Marchant\n     Marino\n     Marshall\n     Massie\n     Mast\n     McCarthy\n     McCaul\n     McClintock\n     McHenry\n     McKinley\n     McMorris Rodgers\n     McSally\n     Meehan\n     Messer\n     Mitchell\n     Moolenaar\n     Mooney (WV)\n     Mullin\n     Murphy (PA)\n     Newhouse\n     Noem\n     Norman\n     Nunes\n     Olson\n     Palazzo\n     Paulsen\n     Pearce\n     Perry\n     Pittenger\n     Poe (TX)\n     Poliquin\n     Posey\n     Ratcliffe\n     Reed\n     Reichert\n     Rice (SC)\n     Roby\n     Roe (TN)\n     Rogers (AL)\n     Rogers (KY)\n     Rohrabacher\n     Rokita\n     Rooney, Francis\n     Rooney, Thomas J.\n     Ros-Lehtinen\n     Roskam\n     Ross\n     Rothfus\n     Rouzer\n     Royce (CA)\n     Russell\n     Rutherford\n     Sanford\n     Schweikert\n     Scott, Austin\n     Sensenbrenner\n     Sessions\n     Shimkus\n     Shuster\n     Simpson\n     Smith (MO)\n     Smith (NE)\n     Smith (NJ)\n     Smith (TX)\n     Smucker\n     Stefanik\n     Stewart\n     Stivers\n     Taylor\n     Tenney\n     Thompson (PA)\n     Thornberry\n     Tiberi\n     Tipton\n     Trott\n     Turner\n     Upton\n     Valadao\n     Wagner\n     Walberg\n     Walden\n     Walker\n     Walorski\n     Walters, Mimi\n     Weber (TX)\n     Webster (FL)\n     Wenstrup\n     Westerman\n     Williams\n     Wilson (SC)\n     Wittman\n     Womack\n     Woodall\n     Yoder\n     Yoho\n     Young (AK)\n     Young (IA)\n     Zeldin\n\n                               NOES--190\n\n     Adams\n     Aguilar\n     Barragan\n     Bass\n     Beatty\n     Bera\n     Beyer\n     Bishop (GA)\n     Blumenauer\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Bonamici\n     Boyle, Brendan F.\n     Brady (PA)\n     Brown (MD)\n     Brownley (CA)\n     Bustos\n     Butterfield\n     Capuano\n     Carbajal\n     Cardenas\n     Carson (IN)\n     Cartwright\n     Castor (FL)\n     Castro (TX)\n     Chu, Judy\n     Cicilline\n     Clark (MA)\n     Clarke (NY)\n     Clay\n     Cleaver\n     Clyburn\n     Cohen\n     Connolly\n     Conyers\n     Cooper\n     Correa\n     Costa\n     Courtney\n     Crist\n     Cuellar\n     Davis (CA)\n     DeFazio\n     DeGette\n     Delaney\n     DeLauro\n     DelBene\n     Demings\n     DeSaulnier\n     Deutch\n     Dingell\n     Doggett\n     Doyle, Michael F.\n     Ellison\n     Engel\n     Eshoo\n     Espaillat\n     Esty (CT)\n     Evans\n     Foster\n     Frankel (FL)\n     Fudge\n     Gabbard\n     Gallego\n     Garamendi\n     Gomez\n     Gonzalez (TX)\n     Gottheimer\n     Green, Al\n     Green, Gene\n     Grijalva\n     Gutierrez\n     Hanabusa\n     Hastings\n     Heck\n     Higgins (NY)\n     Himes\n     Hoyer\n     Huffman\n     Jackson Lee\n     Jayapal\n     Jeffries\n     Johnson (GA)\n     Johnson, E. B.\n     Jones\n     Kaptur\n     Keating\n     Kelly (IL)\n     Kennedy\n     Khanna\n     Kihuen\n     Kildee\n     Kilmer\n     Kind\n     Krishnamoorthi\n     Kuster (NH)\n     Langevin\n     Larsen (WA)\n     Larson (CT)\n     Lawrence\n     Lee\n     Levin\n     Lewis (GA)\n     Lieu, Ted\n     Lipinski\n     Loebsack\n     Lofgren\n     Lowenthal\n     Lowey\n     Lujan Grisham, M.\n     Lujan, Ben Ray\n     Lynch\n     Maloney, Carolyn B.\n     Maloney, Sean\n     Matsui\n     McCollum\n     McEachin\n     McGovern\n     McNerney\n     Meeks\n     Meng\n     Moore\n     Moulton\n     Murphy (FL)\n     Nadler\n     Neal\n     Nolan\n     Norcross\n     O'Halleran\n     O'Rourke\n     Pallone\n     Panetta\n     Pascrell\n     Payne\n     Pelosi\n     Perlmutter\n     Peters\n     Peterson\n     Pingree\n     Pocan\n     Polis\n     Price (NC)\n     Quigley\n     Raskin\n     Rice (NY)\n     Richmond\n     Rosen\n     Roybal-Allard\n     Ruiz\n     Ruppersberger\n     Rush\n     Ryan (OH)\n     Sanchez\n     Sarbanes\n     Schakowsky\n     Schiff\n     Schneider\n     Schrader\n     Scott (VA)\n     Scott, David\n     Serrano\n     Sewell (AL)\n     Shea-Porter\n     Sherman\n     Sinema\n     Sires\n     Slaughter\n     Smith (WA)\n     Soto\n     Speier\n     Suozzi\n     Swalwell (CA)\n     Takano\n     Thompson (CA)\n     Thompson (MS)\n     Titus\n     Tonko\n     Torres\n     Tsongas\n     Vargas\n     Veasey\n     Vela\n     Velazquez\n     Visclosky\n     Walz\n     Wasserman Schultz\n     Waters, Maxine\n     Watson Coleman\n     Welch\n     Wilson (FL)\n     Yarmuth\n\n                             NOT VOTING--12\n\n     Buchanan\n     Costello (PA)\n     Crowley\n     Cummings\n     Davis, Danny\n     Graves (MO)\n     Lawson (FL)\n     Meadows\n     Napolitano\n     Palmer\n     Renacci\n     Scalise\n\n                              {time}  1706\n\n  Ms. BASS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''\n  Mr. ADERHOLT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''\n  So the joint resolution was passed.\n  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.\n  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.\n  Stated against:\n  Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, On rollcall vote No. 412 I was\nunavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2017-07-25-pt1-PgH6268"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 24.711089965421706, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}